| 1 |
The reason that gen_usr_ldscript exists is that we do not install |
| 2 |
static libraries in /. I think the argument for this is that they |
| 3 |
aren't needed at boot time. I would agree that they are not, but, given |
| 4 |
all of the issues we have had in the past with gen_usr_ldscript, and |
| 5 |
that issues keep coming up with it, I would like to propose something |
| 6 |
different. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I would like to propose that we stop splitting the installation |
| 9 |
locations of libraries and use the upstream build systems to install the |
| 10 |
libraries where we want them. If we do that, it means we could get rid |
| 11 |
of gen_usr_ldscript completely. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
We could start doing this today, except that portage has a hard ban |
| 14 |
against installing static libraries in /, which I have opened up a bug |
| 15 |
about [1]. I don't know when or why the hard ban was introduced, but I'm sure |
| 16 |
it was pre-2004 and pre-council. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The down side of doing this that I see would be that people who have |
| 19 |
static-libs in their use flags might have / too small to have the static |
| 20 |
libs installed there. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Thoughts? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
William |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=492542 |
Archives